THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, September 28, 1996 TAG: 9609280004
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 61 lines
Some say it is the ultimate Star Chamber.
Others say it is merely the personnel office for judges.
Its official title is the Judicial Inquiry Review Commission - JIRC - and the seven-member body is appointed by the General Assembly to investigate complaints against judges.
Staff writer Marc Davis wrote a provocative story in Sunday's newspaper questioning whether the commission ought to conduct its business out of the public eye.
By statute, JIRC's investigations are top secret until charges against a judge are forwarded to the Virginia Supreme Court, which has the power to remove or censure unfit judges.
That's as it should be.
Some would like to strip the cloak of confidentiality from JIRC, allowing the public to know about every complaint filed against every judge - regardless of merit.
That would be improper and unfair. Judges should be accorded at least the same confidentiality given teachers, school principals and police officers accused of incompetence or inappropriate behavior. In that sense, JIRC's mission is similar to that of police departments' internal-affairs office.
Others would like to modify the secrecy of the commission, allowing the public to know about charges that a preliminary screening shows are not frivolous.
To be sure, JIRC offers no protection to judges accused of criminal wrongdoing. Any complaints that imply such serious misdeeds are sent to the local commonwealth's attorney or the state police for investigation, says Reno Harp, the commission's chief counsel.
The majority of JIRC complaints concern the courtroom demeanor of judges and originate with unhappy citizens. Many complaints come from people who have been dissatisfied with the outcome of their domestic disputes.
``Hell hath no fire like a disgruntled litigant,'' Harp says.
Judges, like all workers, need safeguards to protect their reputations from those who lodge baseless charges.
JIRC was in the news recently after a Norfolk circuit court judge resigned while being investigated by the commission.
Does the public have the right to know why this judge was being investigated and whether there was any validity to the charges?
Perhaps. And had the judge not resigned, the charges might have been sent to the Virginia Supreme Court, where they would have become a part of the public record.
But the judge in question is off the bench - and removal from the bench is what the state Supreme Court probably would have ordered had it found him unfit.
In other words, the system works.
JIRC is not perfect. Any time investigations are conducted out of the public eye, suspicions are aroused. Yet this commission serves a valuable purpose. Its members are charged with investigating every complaint against every judge and forwarding those with merit to the authorities who have the power to reprimand wrongdoers.
By conducting its business behind closed doors, the commission is able to protect the reputations of good judges unjustly accused of wrongdoing. by CNB